1 2025:CGHC:2223 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 870 of 2005 01. Lal Babu @ Prafulla S/o Laxmicharan Deewan, aged about 27 years, 02. Pratap @ Pandit S/o Laxmicharan Kanwar, aged about 24 years, 03. Gopinath S/o Laxmicharan Deewan, aged about 30 years, 04. Dhanurjay S/o Santram Kanwar, aged about 22 years, All are residence of Village-Kosampali, Police Station - Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (CG) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate, Mahasamund (CG) ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Rahul Pathak,Advocate on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board 14/01/2025 The appellants in this appeal are challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.11.2005 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund 2 in ST No.301/2005 whereby each of the appellants stands convicted under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and pay a fine of Rs.500/- or else to suffer additional one month's RI. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.3.2005 at around 8 pm complainant Shobharam was talking with Biharilal in front of his house about the panchayat election. Father of the accused persons namely Laxmicharan Deewan had also contested the election for Janpad member and lost the election. Hearing the discussion of the Shobharam with Biharilal about election, the accused persons got enraged and started filthily abusing the complainant. Accused Lalbabu assaulted the complainant with a wooden log and rest of the accused persons assaulted him with hands and fist. When Biharilal and Shantibai (complainant's wife) intervened, she too was beaten with hands and fists. Shobharam sustained injuries over his head, chest, back and waist whereas Shantibai suffered injuries over her mouth and back. It being late at night, the report was lodged on the next day by the complainant at Police Station - Saraipali. The complainant and his wife were got medically examined. After completion of necessary investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 294, 323, 307, 34 of IPC. 03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC against the accused persons which were abjured by 3 them and they prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by them in defence. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused persons of charges under Sections 294, 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 05. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. As per evidence of PW-9 Biharilal, the complainant fell on the floor and sustained injuries but due to some political reasons, the appellants were falsely implicated in this crime. He submits that the complainant is in the habit of consuming liquor and as such, in view of evidence of PW-9 Biharilal, it is clear that he sustained injuries due to fall under the influence of liquor. The medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the findings recorded by learned trail Court are not sustainable and the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge. 4 Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellants submits that if this ultimately comes to the conclusion that conviction of the appellants is proper, then considering the facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to the incident which took place in the year 2005, the appeal is pending since 2005 and the appellants have remained in jail for 02 months and never misused the liberty while on bail, their jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellants submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellants by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellants were charged under Sections 294, 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court while acquitting them of the charges under Sections 294, 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC, held them guilty under Section 325/34 of IPC. 5 09. PW-2 Shobharam, complainant, states that on the date of incident all the accused persons abused him filthily, on which he ran into his room but they caught hold of him and then accused Lalbabu assaulted him with a wooden log on his head and thereafter all the accused persons beat him with legs and fist as a result of which he sustained injuries on his head and ribs and fell unconscious. 10. PW-1 Dr. NL Sahu medically examined the complainant on 16.3.2005 and found as many as nine injuries on his body and advised for x-ray of head and chest. As per x-ray report, no fracture was found on head but there was fracture of ribs vide his report Ex.P/1. X-ray film of head is Article A and x-ray film of chest is Article B. In cross-examination, the complainant and the doctor remained firm and nothing could be elicited by the defence from them to make their evidence doubtful or untrustworthy. 11. PW-3 Butkunwar Bai and PW-4 Shantibai have also supported the statement of the complainant. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the unrebutted oral evidence of the complainant which is duly supported by the evidence of PW-3 & PW-4 as also by the medical evidence of PW- 1, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court upon proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 325/34 of IPC. Being so, there 6 is no need to interfere with the findings of guilt recorded by the learned trial Court. 13. As regards sentence, considering the fact that the incident occurred in the year 2005, the appeal is also pending since 2005; the appellants were on bail during trial as well as during pendency of this appeal and nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that they ever misused the liberty so granted and they have remained in jail for about two months, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in sending the appellants back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellants under Section 325/34 of IPC, their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine imposed on them by the learned trial Court with default sentence shall remain intact. They are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months in view of provisions of Section 437A of CrPC. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN